Talk:Project governance framework

Revision as of 13:18, 19 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Great and easy to follow

Purpose explanation Well addressed and particularly like the comparison of the different perspectives of a framework. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article in the abstract

References Good

Relevance of article Relevant and good structure so far. Don't forget to include a section on "limitations" of the framework

Feedback 1| Reviewer name: Julia Hösel

Question 1

Quality of the summary:

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

The abstract summarizes the article well. It is good to get an overview of the article and about the content. I would only add one little thing. You are talking about a guide of APM and also a paper. I would also put in the title of these sources to give some background information.

Question 2

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

What is written until now, the structure and the flow make sense to me. You guide the reader through the aspects of project governance. The point I am missing are examples of how project governance could look like. Until now it's a lot of theories which you put together and which you reflect - what is also quite interesting - but still, I don't know how it is implemented into the company. Which roles are involved? Is there any specific department that defines. implements and controls project governance?

Question 3

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

I really like your style of writing. You use appropriate language. There are some little grammar mistakes and word repetitions in the sentences which can easily be solved.

Question 4

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

The pictured added into the article matches with the discussed topic. It's not clear to which chapter it contributes. You should refer to it.

Question 5

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

Until this state of the article, it is difficult to say. In my opinion, it gives a good overview of the topic itself but it also depends on how it is further written. I would support to go into one special direction. I saw your bullet points and it seems you want to reflect all project governance theories? Maybe I would select two and compare them with each other more detailed.

Question 6

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

The article is useful for academic reasons because there are no processes or practicable guidelines mentioned. As I was mentioning before I would go more in detail.

Question 7

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

All of them give valid sources and in my opinion no need to change.

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: VIncent Oriot

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

In the summary you are writing what each chapter is going to be about but you don't present that many key insights. Maybe instead of writing what is going to happen in the chapters, you could write the key insights of each chapter. Maybe you could directly link those key insights with the respective key sources.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent with its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

The link between the different chapters is not always clear and it seems as if the different chapters are not building upon each other. In the section "Role" you could try to define the roles of the project sponsor more clearly and really explain what he does and why he's necessary for the project. The chapter about "Responsibilities" is clear and good. "Relation with other stakeholders" could be more precise about the relationship with stakeholders.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

There are some writing, grammatical and sentencing issues in the text. E.g. you are not strict about writing "Project Sponsor" or "project sponsor". Often you use a comma before "and" where it is not necessary to use.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

Figures look good so far and are used in the right way. Maybe you could talk directly about those figures to explain them. The writing style is not always precise enough and you're using some unnecessary fill words or sentences.

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

It is clear how the article is relevant but in general you could try to write a little more precise.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

A practitioner might need more detailed information on the roles and activities that he has to perform.

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

Yes, the bibliography is fine. Tres bien! Vincent Oriot==

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Summary is clear and complete, you present the aspects you are going through and put the general notion into a context. Maybe put the quote in italitic to distinguish it?

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent with its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

Very good red rope, but sometimes the bullet points make it unclear if it's another aspect or just another element, maybe use different ones to clarify your thoughts.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

Good writting and sentences, no unnecessary words or sentences.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

Maybe too few figures, could use more to clarify some sections :).

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

The article is relevant and precise, but as I said before, too many bullet points maybe. A section about limits or pitfalls would be appreciated

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

Both students or practitioners would find this article relevant, as mentioned before, limits would make it even more practical to use..

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

THe references are good but should be used a little bit more in the next sections of the article (not only at the beginning)